To be appalled that this isn’t murder?

[Bex5490]

Possible the worst headline I’ve read since the woman in France whose husband drugged her and had her raped by strangers…

But what I don’t understand is why it is manslaughter not murder. A violent act is considered murder if the perpetrator intended to do GBH but the person dies in the process.

Is violently raping a woman not intending to do enough harm?

The world is broken. There are rightly or wrongly teenagers on murder charges under joint enterprise laws for being there when spmeone they know has killed someone. If they go somewhere with the intention of beating someone up, even if it isn’t them that turns it into a murder, they can be prosecuted for it. Yet raping a woman isn’t seen as intending to do enough damage?

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/37-year-old-mum-raped-33808196

This is exactly my point explained far more clearly than I could manage to.

I agree with you OP in your outrage.

I'm not a lawyer though so don't know re the legal angle.

Here's the CPS guidance. Re intent, it says

Intent is an ordinary English word. It should not normally be elaborated on or paraphrased. It is different from motive and the prosecution does not have to prove motive, or that grievous bodily harm or death were the outcome wished for.

The suspect's act must be a substantial cause of the death, not necessarily the sole or principal cause.

https://www.cps.gov.uk/legal-guidance/homicide-murder-manslaughter-infanticide-and-causing-or-allowing-death-or-serious

Common assault is when a person inflicts violence on someone else or makes them think they are going to be attacked. It does not have to involve physical violence. Threatening words or a raised fist is enough for the crime to have been committed provided the victim thinks that they are about to be attacked. Spitting at someone is another example.
Actual bodily harm (ABH) means the assault has caused some hurt or injury to the victim. Physical injury does not need to be serious or permanent but must be more than “trifling” or “transient”, which means it must at least cause minor injuries or pain or discomfort. Psychological harm can also be covered by this offence, but this must be more than just fear or anxiety.
Grievous bodily harm (GBH) means the assault has caused serious physical harm. It does not have to be permanent or dangerous. For example, a broken bone would amount to GBH – in some cases a broken bone might lead to permanent disability but, in others, it might heal without leaving any long-term effects. GBH can also include psychiatric injury or someone passing on an infection, for example through sexual activity.
Wounding requires that the victim’s skin is broken, either on their body or their inner skin (for example, inside their lip) but it does not include the rupture of blood vessels so, if the injury is just bruising, that would not amount to wounding. The injuries involved in a wounding can be less serious than those in GBH.
The GBH or wounding must be caused either with an intent to cause some injury or with knowledge that injury was likely. If it was committed with intent to cause GBH or wounding then the offence is more serious. The maximum sentence for this is life imprisonment.

www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/outlines/assault/

We know that there are some men who absolutely will take advantage of women when they are vulnerable.

Thank you @Windchimesandsong and @Lougle .

From both of those I would think that what he did should constitute intent to cause GBH. But maybe there are details we don’t know as others have suggested.

I believe a life sentence can be given for manslaughter and for rape. So the fact this is charged as manslaughter won’t necessarily result in a lower sentence.

Charging as murder would require that the prosecution proves intent to cause GBH / death which is likely to be difficult and distracting for the jury.

Please don’t use this woman’s horrific death as an opportunity to spew out your own ideology.

Why?

Absolutely horrendous.

This makes sense.

Although there is just something off to me that rape is seen as something other than causing violent (or grievous bodily) harm.

I

Good god.
That poor woman.
Beyond words.

I knew a 16 year old boy who was punched and kicked in the head and died. His assailant was found guilty of manslaughter as there was no clear intent to kill. He was out in 4 years. If you kick someone in the head, they can definitely die. If you suffocate someone, they can definitely die. It should be murder.

I firmly believe that if a person dies as a result of someone committing another crime, it should be treated as murder. That includes drunk driving.

I think that this charge is probably within the letter of the law but I agree with you, rape should be elevated to the status of GBH - in that, if you intend to rape someone and in doing so kill them, even by accident, the charge should be murder.

We know that there are some a lot of men who absolutely will take advantage of women when they are vulnerable.

I don't think rape should be GBH

My mate died after being stabbed in the back. Manslaughter.. Taking a knife from a knife block surely is a premeditated act?
Apparently not. Did 6 years of a 16 year sentence.. His defence argued the 16 years. It was reduced to 12.. He did 6.
My mate has been dead longer than he served now..

I think the justification would be that rape alone may not carry the intention of causing harm - physical, psychological or in terms of transmission of an illness. Though some rapes will intentionally include these elements, many others will not - the motive being purely sexual / paraphilic and steps possibly even being taken to reduce the victim's awareness of the rape having happened.

I don't say this to minimise the seriousness of rape in any context and I agree with you in this case the charge should be murder. But I think legally that would be better achieved by altering the definition of murder to include killing that occurs as a result of rape, rather than by conflating rape and GBH.

She was nothing to him. Our vulnerability is awful. Poor woman.

She left behind two teenage sons and an 18 month old daughter. She was only 37. Her little girl will miss out on so many of mummy’s kisses.

OP you might like the book The Secret Barrister. It starts by setting out how the jury is essential in essential in judging crimes and criminals’ guilt by a social standard and expectation. So if enough of us think this is murder, and sufficient intent to cause harm or think that total disregard for the life of a person in intended actions constitutes murder then a jury should reflect that. A jury is then advised based on case law, and cases can be ground breaking in setting or shifting a standard. I see a lot of threads on here on how impossible jury duty is to undertake for SAHM, anyone with caring responsibilities, school hours to commit to, the total lack of money during jury service - I’m sure that the lack of women in jury service because of these societal constraints is reflected in the outcomes. And then you have situations like this “Trial lawyer ‘repeatedly crossed line’ with rape survivor” https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4n1l3n8zg1o . When I went to Google to find that article, there are SO many rape trials that come up on BBC News.

So sorry to hear of these injustices@StMarieforme and @Blusterydaytodaypoohbear . I honestly don’t understand any of the sentencing laws. It feels like everyone thinks they’re ridiculous but they’re too complicated to change so the legal process just plods along.

If you go out and intend to murder someone, it's murder.
If you commit another crime or an accident, which result in someone's death at your hands, is man slaughter because murder wasn't the crime of choice

Genuinely curious why you’d think that? Rape is traumatic, violating and the exercise of violence and control over another person’s body, why is that lesser than a punch?

I do genuinely want to understand as I wonder if your thought process may throw light on why sexual violence against women and girls is seen as less deserving of punishment and more socially acceptable than other types of violence.

They don't have to intend to kill the person. It's enough they intended to hurt them and it resulted in death.